get_wallet_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'read only' and 'no password needed', which are meaningful behavioral traits, and also enumerates the possible state values. It could mention anything unusual about initialization or errors, but for a 0-parameter getter this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A short set of sentences that are all informative: what it returns, the state values, and the auth requirement. Nothing is redundant and the key info is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there is no output schema, the description does enough by stating the return values and the no-password/read-only behavior. It might have added the exact return shape, but for a 0-parameter read-only getter this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by describing the return contents (state and address), which is more than needed for a tool with zero parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource, 'Returns the wallet's state and address', and adds the exact possible state values. This is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_balances and get_history, although it does not explicitly say how it differs from them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states that the tool is read-only and requires no password, which conveys the obvious usage context: a low-cost snapshot of wallet identity and status. It does not name alternative tools or give exclusions, but for a simple getter the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.